Electoral Administration Bill - Standing Committee B

[Mr. Edward O’Hara in the Chair]

Electoral Administration Bill

(Except clauses Nos. 9 to 18; any new clauses or new schedules relating to part 2 or part 3 of the Bill; any new clauses or new schedules relating to the procedure to be followed at an election on the death of a candidate; and any new clauses or new schedules relating to candidates standing in more than one constituency at an election. )

Schedule 1  Amendments

Diana Johnson: I beg to move amendment No. 28, in schedule 1, page 82, line 9, leave out ‘18’ and insert ‘16’.

Edward O'Hara: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 29, in schedule 1, page 82, line 21, leave out ‘18’ and insert ‘16’.
Amendment No. 27, in schedule 1, page 95, line 4, at end insert—
‘113(1)The Representation of the People Act 1985 is amended as follows—
(2)In section 1(5) (extension of the parlimentary franchise), for “18” substitute “16”,
(3)In section 3(8)(a) (extension of the franchise for European Parliamentary elections), for “18” substitute “16”.’.
New clause 2—Minimum age of voting—
‘(1)In section 1 of the 1983 Act (parliamentary electors), for subsection (d) substitute—“(d) is of voting age (that is, 16 years or over)”.
(2)In section 2 of the 1983 Act (local government electors), for subsection (d) substitute—“(d) is of voting age (that is, 16 years or over)”.
(3)In paragraph 6(5) of Schedule 4 of the Representation of the People Act 2000 (c.2), for “18” substitute “16”.’.

Diana Johnson: The amendments would bring the voting age down from 18 to 16. They give us the opportunity to consider why young people should not have the vote at the age of 16. It is argued that young people are not interested in voting, do not have the capacity to vote and are too innocent and naive about the world of politics; they are also told that others know better than they do about the issues that concern them. Those points were all made in the previous century when discussing votes for women, and it will be interesting to consider the modern parallel.
The Committee has spent many hours discussing how best to encourage the population to participate and engage in our democratic process. The turnout in the general election in May was only 61 per cent.  However, turnout among 18 to 34-year-olds was a mere 37 per cent. That is cause for concern. On Second Reading I was heartened to hear the Minister say, about voting at the age of 16, that nothing was ruled out and that she was open-minded about the way forward.
I remind the Committee that article 12 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, which the United Kingdom ratified in 1991, sets out clear participation rights for children and young people, encouraging them to give their views and to participate fully in decision making.
In 2003, the Electoral Commission undertook research on voting at 16; it also considered the age of candidature, which is currently 21. In 2004, the commission said:
 “There appears to be insufficient current justification for a change to the voting age at the present time”,
and recommended a further review in five or seven years. It would be a great disappointment if it were to take another five or seven years to give voting rights to 16 and 17-year-olds. The Bill’s provision dropping the age of candidacy from 21 to 18 has attracted cross-party support.
In the late 1960s, the voting age was dropped from 21 to 18. A number of people who now are distinguished parliamentarians would have been disfranchised if the voting age had been 21, including Gordon Brown, Simon Hughes and John Redwood— [Laughter.]

Jim Devine: You have just lost your argument.

Diana Johnson: I am sure that everyone would like at least one of those parliamentarians to have participated in the electoral process.
I now move on to the main question: why should 16 and 17-year-olds have the vote? Over the past five years, citizenship classes have been introduced in all secondary schools. As a result, our 16-year-olds are now equipped with the knowledge and the skills to vote. Having reached that stage at the end of their time in secondary school, it seems ridiculous that they should have to wait two more years before being allowed to exercise their democratic choice to select a politician to represent them.
Now that we have citizenship classes, we ought to follow them through and give young people the vote once they have finished at secondary school. David Bell, the chief inspector of schools said in a recent democratic citizenship lecture that citizenship education was a key focus in one in five schools. The result is that young people are informed, engaged and ready to vote. That is very telling, and we need to take account of it.
I turn next to the matter of good voting habits. It is clear from research by the Social Market Foundation that those who vote at the age of 18 are more likely to continue voting for the rest of their lives. It found a link between the age at which people are first able to vote and their inclination to vote more often. People who turn 18 in the year leading up to a general election are significantly more likely to vote than those who  turn 18 the year after a general election; the latter have to wait for up to five years before exercising their vote. For example, those who were 17 in 1992 had to wait until 1997, when they were 23, to vote. In the 2001 election, when they were 27, they were tracked to see what they did, and only 49 per cent. of them bothered to vote. By comparison, 65 per cent. of those who had been able to vote in 1992, and who therefore voted again in 1997, also voted in 2001. The research demonstrates that those who vote young vote often. Although lowering the voting age will not erase the birthday lottery, it will ensure that everyone can participate in a general election by the time they turn 21. That will establish healthy electoral practices, which I am sure we all support.
On the Floor of the House yesterday, I mentioned the European experience of voting at 16 and 17. I was vociferously heckled from one side of the Chamber because I managed to incorporate young people and Europe in the same sentence, which got some hon. Members rather excited. In municipal elections in Germany, 16 and 17-year-olds are allowed to vote, and the turnout for that age group is higher than for older age groups, such as those aged 24 to 35. In local elections in Austria, the turnout among 16 and 17-year-olds reaches 90 per cent. To return to the point with which I started, turnout among our younger voters is currently 37 per cent., and the possibility that we could increase that figure to 90 per cent. by incorporating 16 and 17-year-olds certainly gives us pause for thought.
Numerous organisations have actively supported such proposals for a number of years, including Barnardo’s, the British Youth Council, the Children’s Society, the Electoral Reform Society, Girlguiding UK, the Local Government Information Unit and many more. It is unfortunate that when the Electoral Commission considered the issue in 2003, it did not take too much account of the wealth of research that had been carried out in the previous 10 or 20 years.
Most importantly, organisations run for and by young people strongly support reducing the voting age to 16. The British Youth Council has been campaigning on the issue for more than two decades. Reducing the voting age has also been one of the main manifesto commitments of the UK Youth Parliament since it was established in 2000.

James McGovern: My hon. Friend mentions the UK Youth Parliament. Would she care to discuss the percentage turnout figures for voting for that Parliament?

Diana Johnson: I am not sure that I have the figures to hand, but there is a clear view in the Youth Parliament that exercising the right to vote in municipal and general elections is the way forward. Young people might feel that the Youth Parliament is a sop to them, and that they want engagement in the country’s democratic process. Therefore, the voting figures might not be that high, which is what I think my hon. Friend is suggesting. However, that is no reason not to support the arguments for introducing the right to vote in local, general and other elections.

John Pugh: The hon. Lady is making an eloquent case. The respect agenda is shared by all political parties, so is there any empirical evidence to show that young people who have the opportunity to vote behave in a more socially responsible way? In other words, does the evidence that she cited from Austria and Germany show that young people behave with more civic responsibility because they have been given the opportunity to vote?

Diana Johnson: There is certainly something in that argument. Young people are already engaged in lots of civic activity, and the various pathfinders around the country encourage them to engage with their local communities and take a leadership role in them. If we are asking them to do that, it is only right and proper that they should be able to exercise the right to vote.
Let me briefly put the issue in context. The voting age has already been reduced to 16 in eight countries around the world—countries with various types of Government, such as referring to Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Croatia, Cuba, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Serbia and Montenegro, and Slovenia. Iran has a voting age of 15 and, as I mentioned, in Germany and Austria 17-year-olds can vote in municipal elections.
I believe that the question is not whether young people will be allowed to vote at 16 and 17, but when that will be the case. I started by saying that over the years, there have been arguments about why women should be allowed to vote and why the voting age should be lowered from 21 to 18. I am certain that even if a provision to lower the voting age is not incorporated in this Bill—I am convinced that we will have an interesting debate about that in a few moments—we will talk about the issue again in future. I believe that the voting age will be lowered to 16.

David Heath: I congratulate the hon. Lady on tabling the amendment and on her presentation of the case for it. She covered the ground admirably, and I do not intend to repeat the arguments that she adduced.
It was useful to have a foretaste or trailer for this debate in the Chamber yesterday, when there were questions to the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission. It was clear from those exchanges, brief as they were, that there is support for the proposal among hon. Members on both sides of the House. There are also some who will never support a lowering of the voting age. Indeed, the impression given is that they would rather like the voting age to be considerably raised—and perhaps the franchise to be reduced as far as possible, as well.
I personally believe that there is a strong argument for a common age of majority. There are different views about what a common age of majority should be, but my party’s policy is that the voting age should be 16. The hon. Lady set out some of the arguments for that. I note that attitudes to age, maturity and discernment have changed over the course of history. We have already debated lowering the age for parliamentary candidacy from the age set in 1695 to 18. You will recall, Mr. O’Hara, that I mentioned the  heading of the paragraph in the 1695 Act that talked about “infancy” extending until the age of 20. Few people now would perceive a 20-year-old as an infant, yet in 1695 that was clearly the case. When talking about the age at which people can make an informed choice, we must consider the environment in which we are living and the other choices that people are required to make at particular ages.
If the only argument against lowering the voting age is that some 16-year-olds are not sufficiently mature to—[Interruption.]—switch off their phones in Committee, or to display other aspects of mature behaviour, including using the vote sensibly, I have to say that the same argument could be applied to people of any age.

Brian Binley: I have switched it off.

David Heath: Some people, even up to the age of 90, will not be sufficiently mature to cast their vote sensibly, but we in this country consider that a universal franchise is appropriate. There is no test of intelligence, maturity or engagement before people are expected to vote. On the other side of the coin, many 16-year-olds are deeply engaged in political issues. Any of us who attend mock elections in schools—in my constituency the Liberal Democrats always win at a canter, but that is beside the point—will know that considerable debate goes on. People are inquiring at that age, and they want to know what the political issues are. Indeed, they are encouraged by the citizenship courses that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Ms Johnson) mentioned.
I want to pinpoint one other aspect, which correlates with the point made by the hon. Lady about the first-time voter. There is evidence that people who have a delayed first-time vote do not exercise their vote in future elections, whereas those who have an opportunity to use their vote at an early stage of their majority do so more readily. That is a simple actuarial, statistical fact. The average first-time voter is not 18 but 20. If we have elections at four-year intervals, as the number of people who pass 18 immediately following an election is approximately equal, on a normal distribution, to the number who pass the age of 18 immediately before it, we are making the majority of people wait until they are 20 or older to cast their vote in a general election for the first time. Is that sound, in terms of what we expect from the country?
If we moved the age of voting majority to 16, the average person voting for the first time would be 18 or older. That is simple mathematics. [Interruption.] I can see that the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) apparently has difficulty with that, but it is simple.

Eleanor Laing: It is perfectly simple, but it is not mathematics; it is just arithmetic. It is the use of statistics, which proves absolutely nothing.

David Heath: An interesting distinction: it is not mathematics, just arithmetic, and it proves nothing. On the contrary, it proves that, on the basis of the proposal made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, the average age of a person casting their vote in a general election for the first time would be 18. It is worth bearing in mind that we are disfranchising, for general election purposes, a considerable swathe—a whole cohort—of young people between the ages of 18 and 20, and some between the ages of 18 and 22. I ask the Committee to consider whether that is appropriate in this day and age.

James McGovern: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that there should be one single adult age for Army service, alcohol, gambling and marriage? Should the age of 16 apply to all those, or just to voting?

David Heath: The age for an awful lot of those is 16 at the moment—but let us not get bogged down in that argument, because there is a genuine debate to be held about the right age of majority. I am not speaking for the party here, but personally, I am not necessarily wedded to the view that 16 is the right age of common majority for things such as marriage or serving in the armed forces.

David Cairns: Scrumpy?

David Heath: May I remind the Minister that even under this Government’s licensing laws, the age for consumption of an alcoholic beverage is 14.

David Cairns: Not for the purchase of it.

David Heath: The age for purchase is higher, but for consumption it is lower. Fourteen is the legal age for consumption under supervision, so let us not have any such nonsense.
This is a serious argument. There are no easy rights and wrongs, and no one should pretend that there are. We will do the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North a disservice if we reduce the argument to caricature. It is a serious argument, which we need to have.
I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Stephen Williams) will have an early-day motion on precisely this subject a week today. That will be valuable.

John Pugh: A ten-minute Bill.

David Heath: I beg hon. Members’ pardon; it is a ten-minute Bill. That will test the opinion of the House, at least in the initial stages. The hon. Lady’s amendment is worthy of consideration by this Committee, and on the Floor of the House on Report.

John Pugh: My hon. Friend mentioned citizenship. It is generally accepted that according to inspectors of schools, citizenship is not particularly well taught and is sometimes forced out of the curriculum by more pressing considerations. Does he not agree that in most schools citizenship would be taken very seriously and extraordinarily well taught if there were any danger of pupils going out and voting?

David Heath: I would like to think that that would be the case; my hon. Friend makes an important point. But allowing people to vote as an extension of the curriculum is not a sufficient argument in itself. The wider societal question concerns the stage at which we expect people to be—to use the new Labour term—stakeholders in our society. To be a stakeholder in a society means to pay taxes, to engage in the world of work and to do a number of things that a child is not allowed to do. Some would argue strongly that it also means to exercise the franchise—to vote. That is an argument that we need to have, and I hope that I have outlined my party’s position.

Eleanor Laing: I am pleased that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North has introduced the amendment, as it allows us to consider this matter. I was pretty sure that I disagreed with her before I came to the debate this morning, but she made some very good points. However, having listened to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), I am now convinced that I oppose the amendment.
Using arithmetic to show the average age at which people first cast their vote is meaningless. The hon. Lady’s argument about tracking, and the difference between people who turn 18 in the year of a general election and those who become 18 just after one, is interesting but it, too, is meaningless. If people wish to exercise the right to vote and to take part in the democratic process they will do so, and if they do not wish to do so because they have something else more important to do, they will not, whatever their age. I am unconvinced that all that makes any difference.
I think that I was 22 the first time I voted, because it just happened that way. However, in that year there were five elections. Or perhaps I was younger than 22 after all—[Interruption.] There is nothing wrong with my arithmetic; I just wish to deny that I was right about the year when I became 18, because it seems such a ridiculously long time ago. In one year there were four serious elections, including a referendum on devolution, which gave me my first opportunity to vote. Having had to wait a long time did not put me off voting, or politics. I do not believe that people who desire to take part in the democratic process will be influenced one way or the other by the year in which they cast their first vote. The statistics are interesting, but the argument does not make sense.
There is a good reason for the age of majority being 18. That is the age at which maturity is reached in many ways. It is also, importantly, the age at which our society considers that people should have the responsibility of voting. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North spoke of giving rights to 16-year-olds. However, we should also consider the  question of giving them responsibility. Voting and taking part in the democratic process should not be entered into lightly. It is a serious responsibility, especially if one votes the wrong way.
We already give an awful lot of responsibility to 15, 16 and 17-year-olds. To an extent, they should be given a bit of breathing space in the growing up and maturing process, and should not have all that responsibility thrust upon them at 16. That is not to say that people of 14, 15 and 16 are not engaged with politics, the political process and debate. In my constituency, I organise a schools debating competition that is extremely popular and well attended, and produces debates of high standards in which 14 to 18-year-olds give extremely good speeches, learn the art of debating and become engaged in the political process. I have seen many such people grow from 14 and 15-year-olds who are mildly interested in such matters to 18-year-olds who engage in serious political debate, many of whom voted for me in the last election when they reached 18. Of course, many of them did not, but that is their right when they reach the age of majority: to decide how to vote.
There is a big difference between teaching citizenship and engaging young people in the political and democratic process, and in the process of using reasoning and argument to come to a conclusion. I wish that many Members of this House had learned that ability before—or even after—they became Members of Parliament, never mind at 16. Many have, but many have not.
The 16-year-olds whom I have observed in my constituency will be fully engaged in such matters later, but there is no good reason to thrust that responsibility on them at 16. The hon. Lady’s argument about when women were allowed the vote does not apply, because 16-year-olds will become 18-year-olds in due course—a prospect that did not apply to other disfranchised groups, such as women and some other sections of society. Disfranchisement was forever for such groups, but that is not the case with 16-year-olds, who will reach the age of 18 and of majority later, and get the responsibility of voting. There is no need to thrust that responsibility on 16-year-olds.

David Cairns: Was that arithmetic or maths?

Jim Devine: Sums.

Peter Robinson: We should not decide this debate on the basis of whatever the distinction is between mathematics and arithmetic. Perhaps it has more to do with biology.

Eleanor Laing: Clearly the Committee does not understand the difference between mathematics and arithmetic. [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland agrees with me—because in the Scottish education system there are entirely different exam papers for arithmetic and mathematics. Arithmetic is much easier than mathematics; it is simply about the relationship between numbers, whereas mathematics is a much more complicated process and concept.

Jim Devine: What about sums?

Edward O'Hara: The distinction is relevant, but not worthy of examination.

Peter Robinson: Thank you, Mr. O’Hara. That is why I said that the decision should not be taken on the distinction between mathematics and arithmetic.
In case any hon. Member has the notion that my opposition to allowing access to the electoral franchise at 16 might be due to the demographics of Northern Ireland, and the idea that a united Ireland might thereby come about two years earlier, I should mention that there are some good party political reasons why I might support such an age change. We have the largest youth organisation and university associations of any of the Northern Ireland political parties, and more young people come to our meetings. Our party allows associate membership at 16 and we prepare people for the day when they become eligible to vote.
The approach that has been taken to changing the voting age has implied that this is an exact science, and that on reaching one’s 18th birthday a light suddenly comes on, so that one is prepared, mature and able to vote. The truth is that there are many people who would, at 16, be better prepared to vote than others aged 18 or over. The question, therefore, is what is broadly true of people at that age.
During election times, children often come to the door when I call at houses, because the parents are too busy watching television; having talked to both the children and the parents, I often find that the children often have a better idea of politics. However, although children are growing up and maturing faster, and have more insight into political issues, it is not just age that matters, but experience. People can be taught in school and have citizenship classes. They can, as they often do, have visits from politicians, and they can understand the issues very well. However, something more is needed.
I wonder how many of us hold the same views now that we held at 16. Experience of life often changes our opinions. Some people have a sense of responsibility at 16 and some do not; there is a balance. Despite the fact that people are maturing earlier, I expect that political maturity does not run parallel to maturity in other human activities. The House needs to take into account the fact that people are taking major decisions when they vote in elections. They affect the future of the nation. Therefore, we need a good case for changing the voting age from 18 to 16. The case has not yet been made.
Time is very much on the side of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North. The trend will be for people to mature politically at a younger age. However, before we decide to put people aged 16 on the electoral register, from which we take people for jury service, perhaps we should consider how many people would like their future to be decided by a jury  of 16-year-olds, whose seriousness about some of the matters in question might not be what those in court would expect.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab) rose—

Peter Robinson: This is a volunteer, I suppose.

Chris Ruane: No, but my grandfather was.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if we were to let 16-year-olds in Belfast and the rest of the UK have the vote, those young people would need a great deal of education and encouragement to vote—especially in the Belfast area, because it is third from bottom in the UK for registration levels, with a rate of 72.6 per cent? Twenty-eight per cent. of those eligible are not even registered.

Peter Robinson: Unquestionably, but even if the age were changed to 16 I think that there would be a very low take-up. It might not be pleasant to say so in this Committee, but voting for political parties is not one of the top two or three desires of 16 or 17-year-olds today. As the statistic cited by the hon. Gentleman suggests, it is not even one of the top desires even of those who are 18 or older.
We must ask ourselves if the broad swathe of 16 to 18-year-olds are sufficiently politically mature to take the necessary decisions. I do not believe that they are. We would be making a grave error if we simply cited the trend of history and said that we were saying these things when women were disenfranchised, and those between 18 and 21.
The case has not been made for the voting age to be 16. Why not 15? Why not 14? Why not dash straight from the maternity ward to the polling booth? We must have an age, and no one has told us why it must be 16 as opposed to 18. If the case is to be made, it must show that there is something magical about the age of 16—that that age has a rationale behind it that forces the Committee to adopt it. The case has not been made. I remain open about any future changes, because it would be to my party’s political advantage to agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, but I do not believe that we have reached that stage yet.

Brian Binley: We are talking about a test for voting, and the current test is the test of age. Hon. Members might believe that the test should be the ability to handle mobile phones, in which case I would fail. I apologise, Mr. O’Hara, for having allowing mine to ring in the Committee earlier.

Hon. Members: Again.

Edward O'Hara: Order. The hon. Gentleman has already had a spot fine.

Brian Binley: I shall see you later, sir.
Rumours are flying around the House that I have been appointed president of the “votes for foetuses” organisation, which I totally refute. This is a serious debate about why we should allow our citizens a vote at a certain age. I agree with the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) that the case to lower the  age to 16 has not been made. We are talking about an arbitrary age. Any age would fit the arguments that have been advanced. The point about the age of 14 is fair. Is that the next stage of a process that has been going on for many years? Do we then move to 12? I have not heard the argument that we should change the age to 16 simply because people become 16. That is the important point.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East mentioned jury service, which I particularly want to discuss. The two might not be allied. I might be totally wrong—

Harriet Harman: You are wrong.

Brian Binley: I want to be assured that I am wrong. Forgive me, but the matter was discussed. It is a very important issue. I am less concerned if the two are not allied, but the Minister would be equally concerned if they were allied, and we might not be arguing as we are today.
My concern is that the case has not been made—and even if it had been, I am not sure that such a change should be made in an amendment to this Bill. It is a bigger issue, and should have formed a basis of the debate at all stages of the Bill. I am sorry that we are introducing at this stage of the Bill a subject of such import that would have such an impact on our society. That might be a good reason to exclude it at this stage, so that we can have a proper debate on this subject, using all the processes of Parliament.

Barbara Keeley: I understand that nationally, the UK Youth Parliament supports votes at 16. Interestingly, however, the members of the Youth Parliament and their deputies from Wigan do not believe that the voting age should be lowered to 16 now. Michaela Neild, a member of the Youth Parliament who recently spent a day at Westminster, recently sent me a note saying that
“instead of lowering the age political education should be given, and explanations of the various political parties”
should be given to young people
“at ages 16 and 17, so that when a person is 18 and able to vote at an election they will be more informed.”
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North made some strong arguments, and it is good that we are having this debate. She said that citizenship was a key focus in one in five schools, but that is not enough. It shows that we have some way to go.
I am working to encourage the secondary schools in my constituency to engage in Youth Parliament activities and school debates, but sometimes their agreement to that participation is a bit slow. I also want schools to meet me regularly for question and answer sessions on the role of a MP and the political issues of the day. We recently saw some innovations in local democracy week. The Wigan members of the Youth Parliament have something that they call political speed-dating, which is scary for politicians to get involved in. Interestingly, when they voted at the end on who had had the best interactions, the local politicians came out best.
My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome talked about the birthday lottery—but people can vote soon after their 18th birthday, at local elections. That is important: people can vote not only at general elections but as soon as possible after their 18th birthday, at the next local elections. Indeed, the figures that my hon. Friend cited for Germany and Austria are for municipal elections.
Local authorities are responsible for a great many matters that affect young people. They are responsible for schools, youth services, and leisure and sport facilities; they are involved in key areas such as transport, which is important to people of that age. We must encourage engagement at that level; not enough is done about that. Citizenship and youth participation are important, and if we, as politicians, feel that people in their 30s are not engaged, we must look back at the era when there was not a Labour Government and ask why the Conservative party did not do more during the 18 years for which it was in power.

Eleanor Laing: Sometimes it is reasonable to make a party political point, but that is not a reasonable one. The Conservative Government introduced the national curriculum in education, and before that there was no question of citizenship education. The hon. Lady was not here so she might not remember this, but it was a Conservative Government who introduced personal and social education—

Edward O'Hara: Order. The hon. Lady has made her point. We have, commendably and remarkably, come this far without engaging in party politics, and I hope that we can continue like that.

Barbara Keeley: I think that if she checks, the hon. Lady will find that there has been much more focus on citizenship education under Labour Governments. Only one in five schools is focusing on it now, but there were nearly two decades when work could have been done. Work is being done now, but we must do more and redouble our efforts. We are taking the subject more seriously, and working to get our young people ready for political participation, but I want to make the point strongly that that should have been done sooner.
I agree that the argument now is about when, not whether, we should move to voting at 16. Young people in my constituency do not necessarily say that the time is right yet, but we must redouble our efforts so that all schools have a key focus on citizenship.

David Heath: May I corroborate what the hon. Lady says? I have also spoken to 16-year-olds who are divided on the issue of the right to vote. However—this also touches on what the hon. Lady is saying—they are united in the feeling that local authorities, in particular, should have better mechanisms for listening to what they have to say on the provision of services. We ought to encourage that across the country.

Barbara Keeley: My experience of local authorities has been that they are very good at that, but there is space to say that we must redouble our efforts. All schools must have a key focus on citizenship and political education, and some of them do not. I want to get to a point at which the members of the Youth Parliament in my constituency feel that they are ready for votes at 16, and I take my cue from that.

John Pugh: May I slightly gainsay the points made by the hon. Lady, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome? When suffrage was extended to women, women were not united in the belief that they should have the vote. Some very formidable women in public life, such as Margot Asquith, argued strongly that women should not have the vote, at a time when other women were arguing to the contrary.

Barbara Keeley: That is a difficult point. Women now comprise—I am not sure of the exact numbers at the time of the votes for women debate—more than 50 per cent. of the population, but it is not even worth considering whether that is a comparator. The group of young people aged 16 and 17 is much smaller. When I have consulted on the matter in my constituency, the young people who are very involved—to the extent of coming down here for the day and getting involved with the Youth Parliament—make the point that they do not feel quite ready yet.

Harriet Harman: This has been an interesting and useful debate, and I warmly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North for introducing this subject to the Committee this morning. The points that she and other hon. Members raised touched on a number of different issues that are dealt with by the Bill as a whole. We are concerned that as many people as possible should be included in participation in our democracy; that has been a running theme throughout the Committee. In particular, we have been concerned that young people are not registered to vote and are not participating in the vote. That is why there will be new duties on electoral registration officers to ensure that they cannot just stand by and leave it to people not to register, but must tackle the problem of under-registration and lack of participation.
We also talked, on Second Reading and during the earlier Committee stage on the Floor of the House, about whether our democracy is representative. How representative can a democracy be if it does not fairly represent women, or if it does not fairly represent and hear the voices of minority ethnic groups in the UK? There has been much discussion of the themes of enfranchisement, representation and inclusion. For example, we had a long discussion about whether people with disabilities were properly able to be put on the register so that they then had their right to vote, and we also discussed the armed services. Those are examples of our concern, during consideration of the Bill, to ensure that we have as much inclusion as  possible, so that our democracy is founded on the strongest possible basis and has the greatest legitimacy possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North asked whether we had drawn the line in the right place at 18, or whether we should move to 16. That is an important point, and she made a good case. The hon. Member for Belfast, East rightly said that any age limit is not an exact science. He also raised the point about young people not having experience. It is true that young people do not have the experience of older people. They do not have the experience that I have, for example, of forgetting the names of people whom I know very well, of needing reading glasses, or of just being around for an awfully long time.
However, they have different experiences, and the question is whether we want to draw more on those experiences than we currently do. Young people have experience of things that we in this House and in local councils spend a lot of time talking about; for example, bullying in schools. For most of us, if we have had personal experience of that, it is a long-distant memory. They also have experience of why young people do or do not carry knives; that is a new phenomenon, which was not around when we were younger. They have experience of street crime, which is very age-related in terms of one’s likelihood of being a victim. A middle-aged woman walking down a street is not likely to be a victim of street crime, but a 15-year-old boy might be mugged not once but twice on his way to school. The question of experience therefore cuts both ways.
My hon. Friend argues that it is good to catch people when they are young and have good voting habits. We are familiar with the argument that establishing good eating habits in young people means that they will eat well for the rest of their lives. If they have good exercise habits, they will probably exercise well for the rest of their lives. The idea of catching them when they are young is a good and substantive point that is worth considering.
My hon. Friend also talked about the gap between the end of citizenship classes and the beginning of effective citizenship participation. That is a new point. We did not have citizenship classes before and therefore that gap was not an issue. I agree with her that it seems logical that after completing all the education and citizenship classes—my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Barbara Keeley) rightly pointed out that these classes are not yet as pervasive across the country as we hope they will be—people should immediately participate in democracy by being able to vote.

Eleanor Laing: Is it not the case that in most parts of the country there are local elections every year? I appreciate that in some places they do not occur every year, but perhaps two out of every three years. In my part of Essex people have the chance to vote in local elections on the first Thursday of May every year. Everyone coming out of those citizenship classes will be able to vote in such elections when they are newly 18.

Harriet Harman: My point is that citizenship classes finish at 16. If people do not vote until they are 18, there is a gap. That is the only point I make on this. Hon. Members asked about juries. The Juries Act 1974 sets the age of qualification for jury service and therefore there is no connection there. The electoral register is used as the data for selecting people for jury service as a matter of convenience, but there is no logical connection.

Peter Robinson: I think that the Minister has missed the point about jury service, probably because I did not make it sufficiently clear. The test is whether those who argue that people are sufficiently mature to vote at the age of 16 would be prepared to submit themselves to a jury of 16-year-olds. If not, why should 16-year-olds be taking decisions in the court of public opinion?

Harriet Harman: In local communities where there is a particular problem with youth crime, serious consideration has to be given to how young people are involved in the deliberation of the youth justice system, such as in the community justice centre in Liverpool. There is an argument for including more young people in decision-making in the youth justice system, which affects them not just as defendants but as victims. Returning to jury service, those over 70 are excluded, but they are not excluded from the electoral register.
Finally, I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. We will keep this under active consideration, not because we believe that there is some absolute right figure or because we believe that it is an exact science, not even necessarily because we think that it is a question of rights, but because we are concerned about participation. If lowering the voting age can help us with participation, we must look at it. We cannot just drift into a situation where in some areas only 70 per cent. of the people are on the register, and of those, only 30 per cent. vote. In the context of our desire to increase registration and participation, we will look at this. I thank my hon. Friend for withdrawing the amendment—

Hon Members: Oh!

Edward O'Hara: Order. Let us see.

Harriet Harman: I thank her for indicating that she will seek leave to withdraw the amendment. None the less, I thank her for giving the Committee the opportunity to debate this matter.

Diana Johnson: I wish to make a few brief comments. In tabling the amendment, I am not arguing for a common age of majority. One can recognise that while 16 and 17-year-olds should have the right to participate in our democracy, they must have certain protections. In the wider community, we recognise the need for protection against discrimination on the grounds of gender and race, and the need for minimum wage protection. I wished to make that clear because that matter was raised by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome.
I also wish to express my surprise at the comment made by the hon. Member for Epping Forest about the research on voting habits that has been carried out by the Social Market Foundation. As politicians, we must be concerned about whether people choose to vote. We must examine all evidence and take steps to encourage people to vote.

Eleanor Laing: The hon. Lady made some interesting points about first-time voters in general elections. However, I made the point to the Minister in another context that, in most parts of the country, there are local elections every year. Are local elections not considered important?

Diana Johnson: Of course they are. I want to see young people engaged in local, general, European, and London mayoral elections. However, parliamentary elections are especially important because they concern the running of the whole country.
I was heartened to hear what the hon. Member for Belfast, East said about leaving the matter open for the future. He did not dismiss the idea out of hand. The hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley) recognised that this issue will have a huge impact on society, and he is absolutely right. My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Barbara Keeley) made some important points about the roles of local authorities and local government, and how we need to engage young people to participate. I thought that the concept of political speed dating was scary; I am not sure for whom, the politician or the young person. I was heartened to hear what my right hon. Friend said about inclusion and participation, which all hon. Members want to see improved in our electoral administration.
On the basis of the debate and the comments that have been made by hon. Members from all parties, I accept that now may not be the time to act, but it very shortly will be. However, I will certainly pay close attention to what the Minister does in the next months about her undertaking to keep the matter under active review. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Brian Binley: I beg to move amendment No. 67, in schedule 1, page 83, line 7, leave out paragraph (b).
It is a particular pleasure to table an amendment during these proceedings. My amendment concerns schedule 1, paragraph 61(5)(b), which reads:
“in paragraph 6 omit ‘holding the paper so that the presiding officer can see the official mark on the back of it’.”
We seek to have paragraph 61(5)(b) removed because Opposition hon. Members believe that it is totally unnecessary. Indeed, it is not only unnecessary; it is not at all helpful. I ask the Minister why that paragraph should not remain in the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962. In some respects, we are talking about a symbolic gesture. Symbolic gestures are important. In this instance, a symbolic gesture underlines the fact that there is an ongoing process that is designed to stop fraudulent voting. Ballot papers  have been smuggled into polling stations in Northern Ireland and used. In some cases, they have later been found to be fraudulent ballot papers.
It is important that we highlight—rather symbolically, I admit—the fact that an anti-fraud device is in use. The more we can do to underline the fact that the ballot has important processes in place to ensure its credibility and its true nature, the better.
Why is that line from paragraph 6 in the direction for the guidance of voters in voting in the 1962 Act being removed? To remove it has little impact on any measures in the Bill, but to retain it has import, because that line highlights the fact that there are voting processes in place that protect against fraudulent ballot papers.
Symbolism in this respect is important. We use symbolism in many ways, so why should not we use it here to highlight, both to the voter and to staff at polling stations, that there is an ongoing process to ensure that the ballot is protected from fraud? That must be important in democratic terms.

Harriet Harman: We have said all the way through the stages of the Bill that we have three concerns about electoral administration. We wish to ensure that everyone registers to vote, that as many people as possible vote and that no one fiddles the vote. Nothing in the Bill reduces security. On the contrary, it contains a great many provisions that increase security.
The purpose of the amendment is to amend paragraph 61(5)(b) of schedule 1 to the Bill. The amendment would reinstate the requirement for voters, when placing their ballot paper in the ballot box in the polling station, to hold the ballot paper
“so that the presiding officer can see the official mark on the back of it”.
Paragraph 61 applies to Northern Ireland elections only. The result of the amendment would be to distinguish between Northern Ireland local elections and parliamentary elections. I assume that that was not the intention.
It may help if I clarify the changes that we are making to procedures for voting in polling stations. Those are set out elsewhere in schedule 1. At present, voters, when placing their vote in the ballot box, are required to hold out the ballot paper so that the presiding officer can see the official mark on the back of it. The hon. Gentleman talked about the importance of the symbolism of that. I must confess that I did not even know that that was the rule. However, it is the rule, and it is obviously highly symbolic to some people.
The ballot paper is shown to the presiding officer as a security measure. Its aim is to ensure that only valid ballot papers are placed in ballot boxes and, for example, to prevent a situation in which an invalid vote is put in the ballot box and a valid vote removed from a polling station, possibly as part of some attempted electoral fraud. The idea is that somebody would put another piece of paper in the ballot box and leave the polling station holding the real ballot.
The Bill changes the rules that govern the use of the official mark on ballot papers at parliamentary elections. That mark currently takes the form of a perforation on the ballot paper. We shall replace the perforated official mark with another form of security mark—an appropriate security marking—which may be bar codes, underprinting, special inks or watermark paper. Those changes will enable more automated procedures to be used in the printing of ballot papers, and in the dispatch of postal ballot papers. However, in future, the mark may appear on the front of the ballot paper only. For secrecy reasons, we do not think that we should specify that voters should show the presiding officer the official mark when voting. Do hon. Members understand that in future the bar code might be on the front of the ballot paper? If a person showed the bar code, it would show how they were voting. Previously, that was not a problem. However, we wish to maintain the existing security measures.
The effect of paragraphs 71, 80 and 83 of schedule 1 will be that when voting, voters at parliamentary elections will be required to show the presiding officer the back of the ballot paper so as to disclose the number and other unique identifying marks such as the bar code before putting the ballot paper in the ballot box. Thus, there is no reduction in security for parliamentary elections as a result of changes to the official mark.
However, in considering the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Northampton, South, we discovered that we may not have the right consistency across England, Wales and Northern Ireland in parliamentary and local elections. The hon. Gentleman might therefore have inadvertently brought a problem to our attention—[Interruption.] But not the problem that he thought there was. I can deny him that satisfaction but I ask him to withdraw the amendment. We will let him, and the Committee, know the result of our investigations.

Brian Binley: I am delighted to hear that we have inadvertently found a reason for the amendment. On the basis of the Minister’s reply about security, which was my main point, I understand that it has been thought about; it is an important issue and I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the schedule be the First schedule to the Bill.

Harriet Harman: I shall refer to only a couple of points in the schedule in detail because most of it just implements the substantive points that we have discussed on a wide-ranging basis in Committee.
First, I draw the attention of the Committee to the possibility in the Bill of parents taking their children into polling stations and showing them how to vote, which refers back to our previous debate. The idea is that when children are too young to vote, as well as attending citizenship classes they will be able to see their parents participating in democracy.

David Heath: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Lady for addressing that point. Any sensible person would realise that it is not a good idea for a mother to be deterred from voting because she has a young child in tow—

Kevin Brennan: Or father.

David Heath: Or father, as the hon. Gentleman said. Does the Minister have no concern, however, about the provision applying up to the age of 18? First, someone who is just under 18 might be considered to have a potentially intimidating effect in a polling booth and, secondly, it has implications for the secrecy of the ballot. I ask the right hon. and learned Lady to consider whether that is really the intention of the proposal.

Harriet Harman: Those issues must be considered, but many people feel that they do not know how to vote, or that there is something mysterious about it. If people feel unconfident they might worry about what will confront them when they go into the polling booth. Therefore, the advantages of parents taking their children with them, if they so choose—it is for them to decide—well outweigh the disadvantages.

David Heath: I agree with the right hon. and learned Lady in respect of younger children, and if that were the principal reason for the change that would be a strong argument for allowing more than one person into a polling booth, something that we would normally deplore whether or not one of them was unsure about the voting procedure. We normally say that it is inconceivable that two people should enter a polling booth at the same time. Many over-18s, who are already entitled to vote, might have the same reservations about the mechanics of voting and might well want a more experienced person to join them in the polling booth. We do not encourage that. Indeed, when we monitor elections elsewhere in the world, we strongly advocate that it should not be allowed.

Brian Binley: I have concerns about the provision, but not because I wish to prevent children knowing about the voting process; I understand what the Minister says in that respect. However, she will know that if three mothers go to a polling station together, they might have a number of children with them, which could create problems. I am not against the measure in principle, but we should consider the practicalities within the polling station and the problems that might arise, not least the distraction of the polling officers. I should be pleased to hear the Minister’s comments.

Harriet Harman: The presiding officer will still be in charge of what goes on in the polling station. If three mothers, each of whom has two children, go to a polling station together it will not be possible for one of them to take six children to watch her voting. We must approach the issue pragmatically. It is a change, and I know that change alarms some hon. Members, especially when it involves children. Let us step back and consider whether people will think that the measure is sensible.

Peter Robinson: Can we clarify one thing? I thought that permission was being sought to bring children up to the age of 18 into a polling station, not into a polling booth, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said. If they are to be allowed into a polling booth, he is right to make the case that intimidation is a possible outcome. I see no difficulty in allowing children up to the age of 18 into a polling station, particularly in view of the point made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North. Do we not want to fill the gap for people until they are allowed to vote at 18? This would be a way of making it normal for them to go to a polling station.

Edward O'Hara: Order. Before we proceed, we are getting bogged down on a point of detail.

Harriet Harman: I am glad to have had the opportunity—

Eleanor Laing: On a general point, but not a point of detail, I hope that I can help the Minister by telling her that I know of a mother—she will remain nameless lest it cause trouble for the returning officer who was on duty at the time—who took her child, aged approximately four, into the polling booth at a general election and allowed the child to see the ballot paper going into the ballot box. I understand that the incident caused no trouble whatsoever, and has educated the child well.

Harriet Harman: Many parents want to take their children into the polling station with them. The presiding officer will still be able to regulate what goes on in the polling station. For practical reasons, someone arriving at a polling station might have a five-year-old and a three-year-old with them, and they could be told as soon as they come through the door that they have to leave those children at the door. There is also the need for parents who are looking after children to have easy access to voting without having to get somebody to mind the children. There are two issues here: first, teaching children about democracy by bringing them to polling stations; and secondly, not putting artificial barriers in the way of children when it would do no harm to allow them in to polling stations.
As for people being allowed to apply to the Electoral Commission to observe what goes on at the count or in polling stations, I fear to mention this in case I cause another controversy, but I look forward to the day when not only international observers but citizenship classes will go to polling stations and counts. I would welcome the idea of a local secondary school from Southwark, or from my constituency of Camberwell and Peckham, taking a group of young people to observe the count as part of a citizenship class. I know that people can see counts on television if the result is on a knife edge—which it is not in Camberwell and Peckham—but I do not see why people should not go and observe them. The idea of parents taking their children to see the vote, and of teachers taking their citizenship classes to polling stations and counts, is about opening up our democracy, including more people and enthusing them to participate.

Brian Binley: The point is easily settled, because the presiding officer has the right to ask people to leave the poll, be they children or otherwise. I shall be happy as long as that is emphasised in the instruction notes to presiding officers. However, I would like an assurance that that will be done, because some new officers might not know that they have those powers.

Harriet Harman: I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that presiding officers will be in control. I am trying to resist suggesting that the issue could be the subject of the Electoral Commission’s performance standards. For the most part, we should just see how people manage, and I am confident that things will go well.
I have mentioned citizenship classes and young people going to polling stations, but one point that we have not discussed in relation to the many paragraphs in part 1 of schedule 1 is the requirement for a signature when someone votes in person. The requirement for a signature is another security measure, and it underlines the importance of the fact that the voter must be the person who should be voting. People have to sign for registered post that is delivered to them, but they do not have to sign when they go into the polling station. The Bill introduces the requirement to sign, and the signature will be kept for a year. That will provide additional security if there are subsequent allegations of people impersonating others and stealing their votes, because we shall be able to check the signature. We hope that that will be a deterrent to personation.
I have no further points to add on the schedule, which we have discussed in detail.

David Heath: The right hon. and learned Lady interpreted our concern as being simply reactionary, which is quite wrong. I strongly welcome the view that parents should be allowed to take small children into the polling station; I have no problem with such an obvious and sensible move. However, there is a distinction between small children, who cannot reasonably be left unsupervised outside a polling station, and older young people. I do not want to return to the previous debate, but those young people are adults in many respects, and they are entitled to enter the polling station with their parents. Indeed, by virtue of paragraph 57, someone of 17 can enter with any voter.
Notwithstanding the Minister’s point, I am not totally convinced that that is the approach that we want to take. Why are 17-year-olds allowed to accompany any voter, when grandfather, who lives in the neighbouring polling district, is not? The provision does not ring true, and we need to look at it. I would have put a limit on the age of children who are allowed to accompany a voter, consonant with the age at which children cannot reasonably be left unsupervised.
Eventually, the provision will be challenged. The presiding officer can restrict the number of children who enter a polling station at any one time. I can imagine that if presiding officers were to exercise that right in the last few minutes before a poll closed, they might well be challenged. That is highly hypothetical,  but this is the stage at which we have to present hypotheses for consideration. I am not totally persuaded.
The other point that the right hon. and learned Lady made was about the need for a signature before a polling paper can be received. Absolutely; that is what we have been saying all along. It would be much more effective as an anti-fraud measure if we had not only the signature of the elector when they arrived but a specimen signature as part of the registration process. That is precisely the point that some of us have been banging on about in proceedings on the Bill. I hope eventually to persuade the Minister that that is an elementary precaution that will reduce fraud. A signature in vacuo does not do a lot, as there is no way of knowing whether that is the rightful elector’s signature unless there is a comparator from the registration process. We have half the precaution, but not the other. We have the key but no lock, or the lock but no key. That does not seem an entirely sensible way to proceed.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clause 67 - Financial Provision

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Chris Ruane: I will not take up too much of the Committee’s time, but I want to reinforce a few points. I will not go over the statistics that I have gleaned from the National Assembly for Wales on the amounts spent on registration and on electoral administration. However, finance is key. The figures from Wales show that the local authorities that spent the most on registration had the best results. That should inform our debate.
We should look at best practice around the country, and band the areas. For example, we should look at how much is spent by local authorities in inner-city areas, and say, “This registration department got good results spending a certain amount of money and we recommend that as a benchmark for other inner-city local authorities to aim for.” We should recognise that there are differences in registration rates in different local authority areas.
We know the profile of those who are under-registered. They are young, low-paid and unemployed, and are associated with large black and ethnic populations. Central Government should recognise that if local authorities have large numbers of unemployed people and young people, and large black and ethnic populations, their electoral registration departments will have difficulty registering those people. Additional resources should be allocated from the centre in recognition of those difficulties. That money, if it is allocated, should be ring-fenced for registration, not for any other electoral purpose. If  such areas are having difficulty with registration and money is given from central Government for that purpose, that is what it should be spent on.

David Cairns: Again, the Committee is tremendously grateful to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane). He has done a great service to the House by beavering away and collecting the statistics and information that is not centrally collected or provided. Of course, the Bill will allow us for the first time to get an accurate picture of what is spent on the provision of electoral administration and electoral expenses throughout the country. In the absence of that information, all we have to go on is the work done by my hon. Friend, so I am grateful to him for drawing our attention to it.
The Bill lays down high-level principles for electoral registration officers and the steps that they should take to raise registration levels. The performance standards, which we will see in due course, will obviously add to that. Of course, if a local authority starts with a 98 per cent. registration level and 97 per cent. of people return the form as soon as they receive it, the authority will not need to take the additional measures to drive up its registration level. In other areas, however, the authority will have to send the letter out more than once, and will have to send people round knocking on doors. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the fact that doing more things requires more money. A local authority that does not have to do any of those things will not have to spend that money. His point is therefore valid, but it will probably be addressed in practice.
I have a couple of other quick points to make. We are talking about an estimate—about what we think will be required. Obviously these matters need to be kept under review as we move forward, but we think that this is a reasonable way of setting aside an amount of money for the duties.
I am a former local councillor, and there are a number of people with experience as local councillors on the Committee. We will all have had cuts put before us in a budget round: there has to be a cut or a saving from the electoral administration budget, and a saving from social services or elsewhere. It is easy to cut the budget for electoral administration because, wrongly, we do not perceive it as a front-line service and, in the absence of the national standards, the framework and the reporting that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) highlighted the other day, local councils have very little purchase on what electoral registration officers do. That situation is exacerbated in Scotland, where local authorities do not have their own EROs but share them.
When all these measures bed in and there is much greater transparency, there will be more—“pressure” is the wrong word, but there will be more understanding among local authorities of what EROs are doing and how important and valid that is. They will see EROs as a front-line service that they want to fund from elsewhere in their budget, from their administration budget. All these measures mean that  the tide is moving in one direction, towards greater funding for precisely the services that my hon. Friend highlighted.

David Heath: I listened with interest to the Minister’s reply. Last night I attended a dinner held by the H. S. Chapman Society, whose membership includes many electoral administrators, and those with expertise in this area forcefully made the point to me—it is a constitutional point rather than anything else—that the degree of latitude afforded to local authorities in this respect is not what they perceive. The responsibility lies with the electoral registration officer to spend what is required to do the job, and the Bill confers a stronger duty on the electoral registration officer to perform certain tasks to satisfy the guidelines set out by the Electoral Commission. In a way, however much the electoral registration officer requires to do that forms, in effect, a precept on the local authority.
That situation is analogous, in a way, to the position of the coroner, which I recall from my days as a county council leader. The coroner was funded from the county council precept, but there was no suggestion whatever that we had any control over the amount that the coroner required to do his or her job.
If we can make it sufficiently clear in the context of the Bill that electoral registration officers have a higher duty than the responsibility to the local authority—a duty to ensure the integrity of the electoral process—and that that requires expenditure that is made available, admittedly, through the local authority budgetary process, but is outside the local determination of the local authority, that will put electoral registration officers in a much stronger position to do their job effectively. That will be the case even in the circumstances described by the Minister, of budgetary constraints and people feeling that electoral administration is a budget head that can be safely reduced. We will then achieve the objectives that the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd wishes to achieve, and I think that we all share that wish.

Question put and agreed to.
Clause 67 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 68 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 69  Commencement

David Heath: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in clause 69, page 68, line 22, at end insert—
‘( )section 13;
( )section 14;’.

Edward O'Hara: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 2, in clause 69, page 68, line 37, leave out subsection (5).
I point out that the amendments are very narrow.

David Heath: It would be quite wrong of me, and out of order, to return to our debates about the scope of pilot schemes and whether they should be introduced as a general provision, but we must address a strange anomaly regarding commencement. Ministers must explain why clauses 13 and 14 are to be commenced by an order subsequent to the Act, whereas clause 15, which is the operative clause in relation to the pilot scheme, is not to be commenced by order but is included in clause 69(1) among the provisions that will come into force on the day on which the Act is passed. Clause 15 cannot operate without clauses 13 and 14, which deal with the mechanics of the registration process and providing personal identifiers, and it is hard to see how a clause that essentially depends on earlier clauses can be used when they have not come into effect because they are omitted from the list.
That method of commencement suggests that the Government will continue to delay doing anything about this important subject. Given that the clause contains a limited number of identifiers—not the wide group that we debated in Committee and on Second Reading, but simply the basic signature and date-of-birth identifiers—there is no obvious reason why changes to the 1983 Act should not have immediate effect, so that the identifiers can be included from day one. That would provide clarity and the wherewithal for pilots to take place irrespective of their scope and whether they will turn out to be the preferred solution, as many of us hope.
The Minister must persuade us why we should have a delay of any kind in the commencement of clauses 13 or 14 but not clause 15, which requires subsequent orders to specify the scope of the pilots, and which could not possibly be implemented without clauses 13 and 14. That is the purport of the amendment. I hope that I have kept within the strict constraints of the commencement of the Bill, Mr. O’Hara. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

Harriet Harman: The amendments seek to roll out the collection of personal identifiers when the Bill receives Royal Assent without first holding pilots, but there is not yet enough evidence on which to base a decision about national roll-out. Our proposal to trial the system using pilot schemes is a practical way in which to test policy.
We want clause 15 to come into effect on Royal Assent so that individual identifier pilots can be in place for the annual canvass in 2006. If the personal identifier pilot schemes are successful, they might be implemented nationally to improve the integrity of registers without reducing registration. That would affect the electoral process as a whole by 2008. That timetable requires that individual pilots should take place at the annual canvass in September to October 2006. We do not want to roll the scheme out without giving Parliament the chance to debate the outcome of the pilots. That will be a big decision and therefore needs parliamentary consideration.
Clause 15 is a stand-alone clause and includes a power to bring into force the relevant provisions of clauses 13 and 14 for the purpose of the pilot. Bringing those clauses into force would commence national  roll-out of personal identifiers on Royal Assent. Initially, the pilots would go ahead, without delay. A debate would follow, and we would consider whether to proceed to national roll-out in the light of the effect of the pilots.

David Heath: I hear what the right hon. and learned Lady says, but clause 15(13) states:
 “The personal identifier provisions are—
(a)the amendments made to the 1983 Act by section 13 ... and section 14”
which will not have come into effect when clause 15 does. The argument is a circular one that does not bear close scrutiny. I shall return to the matter in the wider context of the pilots, because, as the right hon. and learned Lady knows, we are unpersuaded of the need for pilots in this context. We want integrity of the ballot box rather than further experimentation.
Nevertheless, on my rather incomplete understanding of the Minister’s response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 69 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 70  Extent

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

David Heath: Will Ministers update us on any subsequent conversations that they have had with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office about extending to the Province some provisions in the Bill that do not presently extend to it?

David Cairns: The short answer is no. We have had no such discussions since we covered the matter at the end of last week. Our colleagues in the NIO are considering the position in the light of a possible new Northern Ireland elections Bill, and we shall wait to see what measures will be presented then.

Question put and agreed to.
Clause 70 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 71 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1 Content of election address

‘(1)Section 91 of the 1983 Act (parliamentary election rules) is amended as follows.
(2)After subsection 1(b) insert—
“( )If, and only if, the universal service provider considers any matter in that communication not properly to constitute ‘matter related to the election only’ in paragraph 1(a), then the question as to whether it is included must be referred to the Electoral Commission for determination.
( )The universal service provider may not by any other means specify what matter can be included in a communication under this section.”.’.—[Mr. Heath.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

David Heath: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is about regulations on the content of electoral addresses—material sent out by candidates via freepost and delivered by the universal service provider, which is, of course, currently Royal Mail. It deals with whether Royal Mail has powers of editorial control over candidates’ material. I say that it does not, apart from the requirement, already enshrined in statute, not to send out offensive material, material that contravenes statute, or material irrelevant to the election. Some people in Royal Mail think otherwise. They think that they have the right effectively to determine that material is unsuitable for their postmen and postwomen to carry. I think that they are wrong, but the law is sufficiently ambiguous to require some clarification.
An aspect of the matter that causes constant concern to many candidates is any reference to or depiction of the Post Office in election material. Every hon. Member in the Committee knows that the Post Office has been a current political issue for some years. Our views on what should happen to it and to Royal Mail deliveries are a proper political issue, within the province of Parliament, on which we can and should express an opinion. The topic is particularly current when closures of sub-post offices are threatened. This has been a very hot political issue in my constituency, and, I suspect, in the constituencies of many other Committee members.
On post office closures or the future of the Royal Mail, some postmasters—not all; there is some difference in practice—will not accept such material in a freepost leaflet. Some splendid rows have developed as a result. Some postmasters go even further. It is not even a question of expressing an opinion, positive or negative, about Post Office or Royal Mail services. The suggestion is that being pictured with a post office in the background is somehow inappropriate for freepost material and must be changed, even if, incidentally, Royal Mail does not own if it is a sub-post office or a private dwelling that is part of the streetscape, village or community.
Postmasters know perfectly well that a general election period is brief and that there is no time for a long argument about whether election material is acceptable. If their initial reaction is that it is not, expediency dictates that the design of the election material must be changed. I understand from the Electoral Commission’s statutory report that that was a big issue in the 2001 election and remained a problem in 2005, despite the best endeavours of the Electoral Commission and the Government to talk to Royal Mail.
That also happened during the European parliamentary election, in which postmasters decided of their own accord that certain political issues were not the province of election candidates and that they had no right as candidates to talk about them in their constituencies because it was not a matter for the European Parliament. It is not for a postman to decide what goes into a communication between a candidate and the electorate; it is a matter for the candidate and  his or her agent to determine. The authorities should intervene only when an issue contravenes the firm requirements governing offensive material or material outwith the Representation of the People Act 2000.

Henry Bellingham: The hon. Gentleman is making a very important point, but at least the literature that he mentioned was delivered. He may not know this, but there were serious black holes throughout Norfolk in which no election material was delivered at all. We have discovered that there is no comeback against the Post Office, because it simply denies any knowledge of the problem. I do not know whether he has had that experience in his own county. Perhaps the Government should consider the matter separately.

David Heath: I entirely accept what the hon. Gentleman says. I do not want to get into bashing Royal Mail because that is not the intention behind the new clause. Undoubtedly, there are problems with Royal Mail delivery of freepost in some areas. I have no idea about black holes in Norfolk, but it is no great surprise to learn that they might exist. I do know, however, that that happened elsewhere in the country. Incidentally, there are often significant problems with delivery in areas where parliamentary constituencies are so inconvenient as to cross postcode areas. Constituents of mine who live in part of the constituency with a Dorset postcode very often receive communications from the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), although they live in Milborne Port, Somerset rather than Sherborne, Dorset. That is a great aggravation for my constituents who, I am sure, like to know about the right hon. Member for West Dorset, but do not feel that he is entirely relevant to their constituency.
My general point is that the universal service provider—whatever that company will be; at present, it is Royal Mail—must realise that it does not have any editorial control over election material. That is not a matter for Royal Mail. If it has a serious doubt about whether material is within the constraints of the law, which is a question that will arise sometimes, it should not make that judgement, but pass it to the Electoral Commission to adjudicate. Although the Electoral Commission is not looking for additional work in this area, it is the only sensible outcome, rather than allowing a postmaster to take a view without the commission’s support.
If there were such a scheme in place, it would have the desired effect. I do not envisage a lot of material being sent to the Electoral Commission for adjudication, nor that it will be a time-consuming or onerous task. Once the message has got through to postmasters that it is not their job, they will not seek to intervene in inappropriate areas, and the Electoral Commission will not have a huge new task foisted on it. I hope that the Minister will listen carefully to those points.

Peter Robinson: I am almost agreeing with the hon. Gentleman, with one exception. If he is arguing that postmen are not fit for that kind of job, how can he argue that it is only where they disapprove of material that it should go to the Electoral Commission? If they are not fit to do the job, the commission should surely do the whole job, because if postmen are not fit, they may allow something to go through when it should not?

David Heath: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. The difficulty is that the postmaster has to adjudicate on matters such as design, fitness for purpose, size and clarity of address, which are proper postal matters. The material has to be sent to the postmaster in proof form in any case. It would be an over-cumbersome process for every single piece of election material to go to the Electoral Commission, which would not welcome that. That would be a misuse of the resources at its disposal at the time of a general election. We are talking not about a passing reference to a sub-post office, or a picture of somebody standing in a street with a post office behind them. We are talking about somebody setting out to be offensive, such as through racial or other forms of discrimination; that is the sort of material that I would expect not to be sent out by freepost, and to be sent to the Electoral Commission to intervene.
There are, sadly, parties that would include such material in electoral address, and they must be stopped from abusing the freepost system to do so. There are also those who would use freepost for commercial advantage. Where an election address sets out an advertisement for widgets at threepence a go, or buy one get one free, instead of a platform for a candidate, clearly that is not proper electoral material and the postmaster would refer it. The distinction is clear. At present, sadly, there are instances of postal authorities overstepping the mark, and getting involved in areas that force them to make editorial judgements. We should prevent that if possible, and I hope that my new clause, however imperfect, might address that issue. If the Government agree with the principle, but think that the objective can be achieved by other means, I am happy to listen to what they propose to do.

Brian Binley: I also have great concerns, although I generally support the thrust of the amendment. I am not sure that the wording is absolutely as it should be, but I take the point that we are giving postmasters a job that they are not capable of, equipped for or trained to do. In the last election, there were a couple of cases in which points were made about political issues that the Post Office was clearly not equipped to deal with.
There should be proper segregation of what the Post Office can take decisions on, such as the size of election material, the way in which it is presented for posting, how it needs to be received for delivery, and the way in which it is stacked in terms of addresses. All those things are vital for the good offices of the Post Office, and it is right and proper that a postmaster should take  decisions on them. However, political matters do not fall into that category, and a clear definition of those areas should be drawn up.
 The other point about which I am concerned is the time and bureaucracy necessary to achieve those objectives during an election campaign. I recognise the difficulties, but it might make it easier if we had a clear definition of the two areas, and made greater use of the electoral registration officer, and subsequently the Electoral Commission, rather than relying on the Post Office. I therefore make a plea for the Government to consider that matter again, for all our sakes. Although I generally support the thrust of the amendment, I am not sure that the wording is correct. Will the Minister give us some comfort in that respect and say that he will examine that matter again?

David Cairns: I am not going to recommend that my colleagues accept the new clause if it is pressed to a vote, but I am grateful to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome for giving me the chance to clarify some of the issues that have been raised during this short debate.
As we know, the Royal Mail has certain obligations—in relation to obscene publications, for example—and has obligations to its own staff in relation to the weight of items delivered. The hon. Gentleman made the point that it also has its own procedures and sets out regulations on how those leaflets should be delivered. However, the 1983 Act gives the Royal Mail other obligations. It says that the communication should include, and that therefore the Royal Mail should deliver
“matter relating to the election only and not exceeding 60 grammes in weight.”
It is not for the Royal Mail, or the postmasters, to express a view on the editorial content—

David Heath: They do.

David Cairns: Let me finish. They should not express a view on the editorial content of a particular leaflet. That was a problem in 2001, when the Royal Mail was issuing guidance in relation to the closure of post offices, but it now accepts that it was wrong to do so, and will not do it again. That matter has therefore been clarified and dealt with.
 As I understand it, the only leaflets that were rejected for delivery at the last election were adverts for Madame Tussaud’s, which had nothing whatever to do with the election. The Royal Mail is not intending to start interfering in the editorial content of the leaflets; it does not want to do that—[Interruption.] I shall give way in just a moment.
Moreover, individual postmasters do not take such delivery decisions; the Royal Mail has its own internal procedures so that, should an issue arise on which a judgment is needed, it is passed up the chain of command in the Post Office for legal advice, so that the Royal Mail conforms to its legal obligations. The average postmaster at the sorting house does not take such decisions; if he or she is confronted with such an issue, there are internal procedures in the Royal Mail that will address it.

Peter Robinson: Is it not true that the Post Office will have to look at the editorial content? The Post Office would become liable to libel proceedings if it were to distribute literature that contained defamatory remarks about any of the other candidates. Perhaps elections in Northern Ireland are more robust than in other areas, but I think that it will be necessary for the Post Office to do that.

David Cairns: I made the comment about editorial content after I had said that the Post Office has an obligation to ensure that it complies with other legislation such as that on obscene publications. I did not specifically mention libel, but clearly that is one of the issues that it would have to look at.
I am happy to clarify that point. The Post Office should not send out material that is libellous, as it would be partly responsible for the libel. That general principle guides it on everything that is sent out. The leaflet before us does not libel anyone and it is not obscene; the Post Office has no business saying that it does not agree with this or that policy.
An enormously wide range of leaflets go out at election time, from the extreme left to the extreme right, and there is no evidence that the Royal Mail is interfering routinely in those matters. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome is chuntering away, saying, “Yes, it is”, but he cited one example to do with privatising the Royal Mail. I have already said that that issue was raised with the Royal Mail, which accepted that it was wrong and agreed not to do it again. The hon. Gentleman began by saying that timetables are tight and so on, but he would introduce another layer of bureaucracy. That would exacerbate the situation.
The hon. Gentleman did not answer the point made by the hon. Member for Belfast, East, which was that if the Royal Mail is not fit to decide what should not be in, why should it be fit to decide what should be in? If we say that someone has to exercise editorial control, but we have a fallback position only if the Royal Mail decides that something should not be in, then we come to the logic of the point made by the hon. Member for Belfast, East, which is to give the whole thing to the Electoral Commission and let it decide on every leaflet. We do not want that. Only one leaflet fell foul of the provision at the last election, but we obviously need to keep an eye on the situation in case it starts to spin out of control again, as it may have done in the past.
We cannot accept the new clause as it stands; we need to have a big think about how it would be resourced, how the Electoral Commission would work and what other appeals mechanisms there should be. However, I hope that I have clarified the situation, which is what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome was looking for. It is not for the Royal Mail to express a view one way or the other on the content of policies that are not obscene and do not libel anyone. Its duty is to ensure that the leaflets relate to the election; adverts from Madame Tussaud’s do not relate to the election, which is why they were ruled out.

David Heath: I have noted before that the Minister gets rather more excited towards the end of the sitting than he does at the start. Perhaps is something to do with his blood-sugar levels. What he states does not reflect the experience of a great number of practitioners from all parties, who have had precisely that difficulty with the Royal Mail. Although I hear what the Minister says about procedures within the Royal Mail, I do not accept that they are always put into effect in the way that he suggests.
If the result of our debate is that a clear message goes out that there are limits to the extent to which the Royal Mail can interfere in such matters, that would be a good thing. That is the outcome that I desire. However, to say that it does not happen is wrong. I know for a fact that a vociferous argument took place in my constituency during the European parliamentary elections in 2004, long after the Minister claims it was all sorted, because a leaflet included references to the health service and the police. The health service and the police are as relevant to politicians seeking election to the European Parliament as they are to anyone else, but the postmaster decided otherwise. He decided that those matters ought not to be included in an freepost election leaflet for a European parliamentary election. If that is not editorial control, what is?
I suggest that the Minister collates information from his own party agents, if not from those of other parties, as to exactly what happens rather that simply asserting that everything is all right now. It is not. It needs further clarification. [Interruption.] Exasperation will get the Minister a long way but not, I suggest, in this Committee, because he has not made a case; he says only that everything is all right. I welcome the support of Members from other parties who say that it is not all right and that problems still need to be addressed. The Minister would do well to listen to the various political parties and their experience of what happens.
As I say, our debate may be sufficient to effect a change. I would welcome that enormously. However, I firmly intend to return to the matter. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 3 Absent and overseas voters

‘(1)The Secretary of State shall, within 12 months of the enactment of this Act lay regulations—
(a)providing that overseas voters’ ballot papers may be delivered to a British diplomatic representative and if so delivered before the close of the poll shall be counted there in secure conditions and the result transmitted by electronic means to the returning officer or officers in any such polls;
(b)providing that absent voters’ ballot papers may on any weekday after their distribution by post be left at a place designated by the returning officer at any time designated in this regulation and kept in secure conditions until the close of the poll when they shall be counted with other ballot papers; and
(c)providing that a returning officer or officers shall adopt a common date on which absent voters’ ballot papers shall be posted.
(2)Regulations made under this section shall be laid in draft before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament before being made.’. —[Mrs. Laing.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Eleanor Laing: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I speak on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner). The clause relates to absent and overseas voters. In this year’s general election, many people who live outside the United Kingdom who were entitled to vote lost that right because of administrative problems in returning their ballot papers. If the Minister is unwilling to accept the new clause as a way of putting that right, can she please reassure the Committee that the Government will take other steps to protect the rights of voters who live outside the United Kingdom?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Lady anticipates my response. I cannot offer to accept the new clause, but the points that lie behind it are well made. I said earlier that we want to ensure that as many people as possible register to vote and participate in voting, including overseas voters, crucially servicemen and women. Although we cannot accept the new clause, there is more that can and should be done. The Bill has thrown light on many areas in which people are inadvertently being disfranchised, either because of the time it takes to vote or by not being on the register. We will need to look at the matter further.

Eleanor Laing: I accept the Minister’s assurance; I am very pleased to hear what she said. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4 Extra provision for collection of postal votes

‘There shall be available in each constituency until, and including, polling day, a ballot box at which postal votes may be cast in person.’. —[Mrs. Laing.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Eleanor Laing: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause relates to the collection of postal votes. There has been great concern since the last general election about the opportunities available for fraud in connection with postal voting. We all see the point of postal voting—not universal postal voting but postal voting in certain circumstances—as it allows people who would not otherwise be able to do so to cast their vote. Therefore we want it to work properly. However, there have been many instances that ring alarm bells about the delivery of postal votes, and of postal votes going missing.
If the new clause were accepted, people who had a postal vote could go in person and deliver their postal vote, thereby ensuring that it was in the right box. The vote would not have to be cast on polling day but could be done before polling day, and the voter would not be in any doubt that it had arrived at the right place, by the right time.

Harriet Harman: The amendment would insert a clause into the Bill that would oblige electoral registration officers to provide a ballot box for postal voters to deposit their ballot papers in advance of, or on, polling day.
I appreciate that the hon. Lady’s intention is to provide a safeguard against electoral fraud or to reassure people who are worried about it, even when that is not the reality. The concerns in the media about electoral fraud have undermined some people’s confidence and many postal voters deliver their ballot papers by hand to the relevant electoral registration officer or to the polling station on polling day. However, some attempt to do so when electoral staff are not in the office, which can result in completed ballot papers being handed to staff members who are not trained to deal with them. That creates an opportunity for electoral fraud or for the completed votes to be mislaid and not passed on to the electoral registration officer, causing the elector to be disfranchised.
However, secure systems have been established between the postal service and the electoral services officer to enable postal ballots to be returned through the postal service. It is still best for somebody who has a postal vote to post it.
I acknowledge the concerns of the hon. Member for Epping Forest, but I do not believe that legislation is necessary in this instance. Electoral registration officers and returning officers are responsible for the organisation and running of elections, and it is clearly best practice to provide the service that she has described. I am informed that the measure advocated in the amendment is already adopted by many EROs, and regulations already enable voters to hand in their completed postal ballot papers at their polling stations on polling day.
The idea of having a central place where they could put their postal vote in a ballot box might—I hesitate to say this—have to be subject to good practice guidelines from the Electoral Commission. First, we should see how many people want to do that, how big the problem is and whether the matter can be dealt with by light-touch encouragement rather than the full force of good practice guidance. The hon. Lady is right that the point should be drawn to the attention of the Committee, the EROs and the Electoral Commission.

Eleanor Laing: I am pleased that the Minister shares my concern about this aspect of preventing electoral fraud. Let us hope that the Electoral Commission will also take note of what she has said at the appropriate time and in the appropriate way. In the hope that that will happen, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn
‘(1)Section 125 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (c. 41) is amended as follows.
(2)In section 125 (restriction on publication etc. of promotional material by central and local government etc.), for paragraph (4)(b), substitute—
“(b)‘the relevant period’, in relation to a referendum, means the period commencing with the beginning of the referendum campaign and ending with the date of the poll.”.’.—[Mrs. Laing.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Eleanor Laing: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 5 concerns referendum campaign funding. It would amend section 125 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The Electoral Commission recently published a report into last year’s north-east regional assembly referendum. That strongly criticises the controversial information campaign of the Deputy Prime Minister, on which some £3 million of taxpayers’ money was spent on one side of the campaign. The Electoral Commission recommends that the Government should be banned from funding any information campaign, not just 28 days before polling day, as at present, but from the start of the referendum period.
Section 125 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 sets out the restrictions on publications at referendums. No material of a specified type may be published during the relevant period by or on behalf of any Minister of the Crown, Government Department or local authority, or any other person or body whose expenses are defrayed wholly or mainly out of public funds or by any local authority. Material relating to a referendum may be published only during the referendum period if it complies with specified requirements.
The effect of new clause 5 would be to alter the relevant period from 28 days before polling day to a period commencing when the campaign begins and ending with the date of poll. That would effectively ban the Government from funding any information campaign with taxpayers’ money.

David Heath: We concur.

David Cairns: We do not, but I will do the hon. Lady the courtesy of explaining why.
We have to strike a balance. Clearly, it would be inappropriate in the four weeks or so leading up to a major decision such as a referendum if the Government or any public body that had access to lots of funds were to spend money to promote one side of the argument. That is why the 28-day period is specified.
Referendums do not fall, fully formed, from heaven. They are the political acts of Governments in pursuance of political objectives. It would seem perverse in relation to a major decision by the  Government—such as having arranged, with the agreement of Parliament, to hold a referendum—not to allow them to explain the impact of the proposal.
We are talking about an elongated period that could last up to 10 weeks with the various steps that are needed to set up the referendum. We do not think that saying that the Government should effectively go into purdah for the entire length of the referendum period strikes the right balance, but we accept that a balance needs to be struck. The 28 days—that is when most people will begin to pay attention to the referendum—is there to ensure that there is a clearly laid-out set of guidance about who is speaking for the yes campaign, who is speaking for the no campaign, how they are funded and to whom they are accountable. The Government will observe purdah and will step back from that. We think that that strikes that balance. That is why we not minded to accept the new clause.

Peter Robinson: I hope that not all of the Government will go into purdah, as I understand that it applies only to women.
The reality is that the Government abuse the whole referendum system. The experience of the 1998 referendum in Northern Ireland on the Belfast agreement will not leave me for as long as I live. The Government threw tens of millions of pounds into a campaign in support of that agreement, whereas the opponents had £70,000. That made it a fairly unequal contest in terms of the distribution of documentation and other campaigning. We need to tie the Government down so that people can assess in a more balanced way what the arguments are on any issue. The new clause goes some way to doing that.
I welcomed the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, even though it came after the event, but there are other elements of campaigning that the Government still get up to that fall outside the remit of publications. In the case of Northern Ireland they even brought in the great and the good from far and wide. They involved pop groups and others and did anything that would persuade people to vote in one direction. The new clause is a good step and is welcome. If people are to take a fair decision we need a level playing field, rather than one that is seriously skewed in the Government’s favour.

Eleanor Laing: The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) makes a good point which I am sure Ministers will heed. But the Opposition would be surprised if the Government accepted the new clause or his arguments because there is currently no level playing field when a Government bring forward a referendum. We appreciate that and perhaps it is asking too much of a Government who want to continue winning to accept a level playing field. It must be said that the use of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money was completely in vain, as the Deputy Prime Minister was overwhelmingly defeated by the sensible people of the north-east.
I can see that the Minister is unwilling to accept new clause 5 but I will not insist on pressing it to a vote. On looking around the Room, and considering the way that hon. Members might vote—[Interruption.] I  assure the Minister that this is simple arithmetic. There are more people sitting behind him than behind me. I will therefore resist the temptation to press the new clause to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 6 Challenging election results

‘The ongoing conduct of a police investigation into an election shall not prevent such election result being capable of being challenged by way of an election petition.’.—[Mrs. Laing.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Eleanor Laing: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We have tabled the new clause because there seems to be no sensible reason why an election petition should have to await the outcome of a police investigation. The two should proceed in parallel.

Harriet Harman: The proposed new clause attempts to prevent a police investigation into a particular election from hindering the submission of an electoral petition that challenges the result of that election. We strongly believe that, as part of the security measures to ensure confidence in elections, there must be effective police action whenever there is a suspicion of fraud. Recently, the courts have, rightly, handed down prison sentences for those engaged in election fraud. Even if it concerns just one small election in one ward, election fraud has the potential to undermine everyone’s confidence in the democratic system. We take that matter seriously.
The election petition procedure is extremely ancient and cumbersome. All hon. Members would agree that it could be improved. Recently, Judge Richard Mawrey QC, having handled the election petition in Birmingham, said that the procedures need to be reviewed. We agree with that, and the Electoral Commission is examining those antiquated procedures. However, the proposed new clause is not necessary. The rules governing the presentation of an election petition to the courts are set out in part 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, which contains no provisions that prevent any party from presenting a petition due to an ongoing police investigation into an election. Indeed, it is often crucial for the election petition proceedings to be determined first.
The decision or report of the election court is often required before a prosecutor can decide whether it is appropriate to seek to prosecute a criminal offence. Both matters should proceed expeditiously; neither should wait for the other. We believe that the proposed new clause is unnecessary.

David Heath: We would all echo the right hon. Lady’s assertion that we wish to see electoral petition arrangements brought up to date and made more  accessible and efficient in their operation. But I ask the Minister; what better vehicle can there be to do that than this Electoral Administration Bill? Does she intend to bring forward amendments at a later stage in the progress of this Bill or are we to expect a new Electoral Administration Bill in 2006?

Harriet Harman: After hundreds of years, there must be an updated electoral petition procedure. However, we are not yet ready; the Electoral Commission has not yet carried out its work in building a consensus as to what the alternative should be. Far be it from me to suggest that we should be like the Home Office and introduce Bills one year after the other. However, during the progress of this Bill, we have identified a number of issues that we must examine further. I am making something of a pitch because we may need to legislate again in due course. I cannot make any promises on that, but it will not be during the Report stage.

Eleanor Laing: I accept the Minister’s explanation as to proposed new clause 6 being unnecessary due to the current legal position, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

Harriet Harman: Mr. O’Hara, may I take the opportunity on behalf of all hon. Members to thank you for your expert chairmanship of the Committee? We know that you have in mind not only the proceedings of the Committee, but your Merseyside constituents, on whose behalf you work so hard, and where you understand, as we do, the problems of people not registering and low participation in elections. We know that those issues are dear to your heart.

Edward O'Hara: Order. But not when it comes to knife-edge results, I am afraid.

Harriet Harman: We also ask you to thank Mr. Conway for chairing the Committee. In addition, I thank the Clerks and, of course, the officials at the Department for Constitutional Affairs for their excellent work.
As you will have noticed, Mr. O’Hara, we did not have new Labour clones on the Back Benches. We have had a lively debate in which important views have been expressed, and things have been put on the forward agenda.
I thank the hon. Member for Epping Forest. She has been ably supported by the hon. Member for Northampton, South, who has made several helpful contributions. Also, it has been useful to hear the view from Northern Ireland. Often, people do not understand how important it is for Northern Irish Members of Parliament to participate in Committees and add their comments in the way that the hon. Member for Belfast, East has done.
I also thank the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, who has participated disproportionately in our debates and always made useful contributions.

Eleanor Laing: May my colleagues and I add our thanks to those from the Minister? You and your colleague, Mr. Conway, have chaired our proceedings in a courteous and patient way. I do not know how you have the patience, but we greatly appreciate it.
I thank members of the Committee for the courteous way in which they have listened and responded to our arguments. I particularly thank the Ministers, who have also been patient and courteous. Sometimes, they have also been unusually forthcoming in providing full explanations of the Government’s position.

David Cairns: Oh dear.

Eleanor Laing: Sometimes. This has been a very constructive Committee, and it has been a pleasure to serve under you, Mr. O’Hara.

David Heath: I also thank you, Mr. O’Hara, and Mr. Conway. At the risk of making an entirely disproportionate comment, I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for what I consider to be a compliment. When things are worth saying during the scrutiny of a Bill, I am determined to say them; I have no compunction about so doing. The Bill has been  improved by the Committee’s proceedings and, in prospect, at least, by the Ministers’ assurances. We look forward to Report.
Finally, I thank the hon. Members for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) and for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) for their assistance and co-operation, which have allowed the Committee to progress. It shows that without knives and excessive programming and with a degree of sensible co-operation, we can make swift progress on a Bill. I hope that we will learn that lesson.

Edward O'Hara: I, too, express my appreciation to the Committee for the courtesy and good humour with which the proceedings have been conducted. There has been the odd case of exasperation, as well as a slightly heated exchange earlier today. Generally, however, our proceedings have been courteous, good tempered and consensual.
There is an old saying about elections to the effect that if only half the electorate votes, one side or the other will say that it was the wrong half. Let us hope that the Bill has consigned such remarks to the dustbin.

Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.

Committee rose at six minutes to One o’clock.